5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Jersey Girl]

I think it's oddly presented. It sort of makes it look like Jesus never answered the question that was posed. What do you think about that?

Jesus from reading the Bible seemed to enjoy not answering questions, answering questions with questions or by responding with a parable that while providing a response doesn't really answer the question asked.

It's actually a trait of people regarded as moral, religious or philosophical teachers. It can also be extremely frustrating in a conversation

So, do you mind if I ask you a question? ;-0

Do you think that Jesus answered the question in the quoted link?



(Actually that was 2 questions!)

[_Quasimodo]

Jesus from reading the Bible seemed to enjoy not answering questions, answering questions with questions or by responding with a parable that while providing a response doesn't really answer the question asked.

It's actually a trait of people regarded as moral, religious or philosophical teachers. It can also be extremely frustrating in a conversation

It seems obvious to me, despite gospels to the contrary, that Jesus was a well trained lawyer or PR professional.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's a copy of the article/sermon that I linked RJ to.

July 23, 2011
Written by Rodney Mundy

Excerpt from Mark 12:13-17

"Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor or not?" . . . "Bring me a denarius and let me see it." And they brought one. Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?"

Reflection by Martin B. Copenhaver

Jesus asks 307 different questions in the gospels. (No, I didn't count them myself, but someone did.) By contrast, Jesus only directly answers three of the 183 questions he is asked in the gospels. Instead of answering a lot of questions, Jesus responds in other ways.

In some instances Jesus simply keeps silent, as when Pilate questioned him after his arrest.

Or, Jesus responds to a question with another question. When asked, "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" Jesus points to a coin and asks, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" (It reminds me of the old Jewish joke, "Why does a Jew always answer a question with a question?" "Why shouldn't a Jew always answer a question with a question?")

Or, sometimes Jesus responds to questions indirectly. For example, when Jesus is asked, "Who is my neighbor?" he responds by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Catholic author Richard Rohr writes, "In general, we can see that Jesus' style is almost exactly the opposite of modern televangelism or even the mainline church approach of 'Dear Abby' bits of inspiring advice and workable solutions for daily living. Jesus is too much the Jewish prophet to merely stabilize the status quo with platitudes."

Jesus is not a giver of advice. He doesn't give us a neat list of ten ways to be closer to God. He does not provide easy answers. Instead he asks hard questions. In that he is more like the Zen master who asks questions to take us beyond the obvious to something deeper.

Easy answers can give us a sense of finality. By entertaining hard questions God has a chance to change us.

So why does Jesus ask so many questions? Well, why shouldn't Jesus ask so many questions?

Did Jesus answer the question?

[_RedJacket]

Jesus from reading the Bible seemed to enjoy not answering questions, answering questions with questions or by responding with a parable that while providing a response doesn't really answer the question asked.

It's actually a trait of people regarded as moral, religious or philosophical teachers. It can also be extremely frustrating in a conversation

So, do you mind if I ask you a question? ;-0

Do you think that Jesus answered the question in the quoted link?

(Actually that was 2 questions!)

Don't worry Jersey Girl I actually enjoy being asked questions and asking them too.

Here's the whole scripture referred to in the above link:

Mark 12:13-17
Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” Jesus said to them, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.

Do I think Jesus provided an answer to the question asked?

I think Jesus provided a response, but I do think that response involved answering the question with a question. It also in many ways is rather open ended and could arguably be interpreted in a number of ways.

It isn't a simple, "Pay taxes" or "Don't pay taxes". I'd argue deliberately so.

[_RedJacket]

It seems obvious to me, despite gospels to the contrary, that Jesus was a well trained lawyer or PR professional.

I'd agree Quasimodo. Politicians today are just as difficult when it comes to getting straight answers and I think there's a good chance that Jesus was a failed political leader who got crucified before he had the chance to take down the Romans.

Or maybe I've watched too much Braveheart.

[_Jersey Girl]

This is what I find odd about that article (which is actually a reflection not a sermon). Let's say I was just I dunno...the guy next door and like me, I'd seen your post about the number of questions that Jesus was asked and how Jesus reportedly only answered 3 questions directly...and I read the article, I would think that Jesus never answered the question. But it's me, who is well familiar with the Bible, and my impression is that it's misleading because Jesus answered the question and it's very likely that even those who aren't familiar with the Bible have heard the answer before. Here it is... in the KJV because LDS use it and I was raised on it.

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

So I say it's a misrepresentation of scripture. Jesus basically asked them why they were tempting him and then he asks them to bring him a coin, he uses the coin as a teaching tool and then he answers question.

Many non-Bible readers have heard some variation of the phrase and in more popular terms it's stated something like "Give Caesar his due".

Makes me wonder what the book has to say. I doubt I'd purchase it though.

Bottom line, the concern I have with that is that some guy is going to take the ball and run with it and start saying things like "Hey, your Savior didn't answer the questions his own believers asked him, why do you expect me to?"

Or things like that....

[_Jersey Girl]

It seems obvious to me, despite gospels to the contrary, that Jesus was a well trained lawyer or PR professional.

I try not to take offense by things that are posted on this board and most times I'm successful. Jesus wasn't a well trained lawyer or PR professional, Quasi. The Jesus of the New Testament was a teacher.


I'm concerned that you think that on account of the article that Jesus simply went around asking rhetorical questions when people posed questions to him. I don't know if you are at all familiar with the Bible, but people who are, know that he answered the questions as part of a lesson.

It concerns me and I don't like the way it makes me feel when I see the Jesus of the Bible referred to as a lawyer or PR guy.

That's why I replied here.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'd agree Quasimodo. Politicians today are just as difficult when it comes to getting straight answers and I think there's a good chance that Jesus was a failed political leader who got crucified before he had the chance to take down the Romans.

Or maybe I've watched too much Braveheart.

A failed political leader who would have tried to take down the Romans by telling people to obey the Roman government?

I'm not seeing it, RJ.

[_RedJacket]

This is what I find odd about that article (which is actually a reflection not a sermon). Let's say I was just I dunno...the guy next door and like me, I'd seen your post about the number of questions that Jesus was asked and how Jesus reportedly only answered 3 questions directly...and I read the article, I would think that Jesus never answered the question. But it's me, who is well familiar with the Bible, and my impression is that it's misleading because Jesus answered the question and it's very likely that even those who aren't familiar with the Bible have heard the answer before. Here it is... in the KJV because LDS use it and I was raised on it.

I originally found the quote in a sermon online, not the link you quoted it was longer but it said a lot of the same things. Personally, I think that there is a lot more ambiguity in Jesus answers than you may be giving them credit for. I see a lot more there than you seem to be willing to admit. I think that Rev. Martin B. Copenhaver is more than qualified to see that nuance there in the answers that are placed in Jesus' mouth in the Bible.

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

So I say it's a misrepresentation of scripture. Jesus basically asked them why they were tempting him and then he asks them to bring him a coin, he uses the coin as a teaching tool and then he answers question.

That's certainly one interpretation of the above scripture. However I would contend that it is actually a lot more complicated than that. It obvious that the parables are written in a deliberate attempt to allow readers to take what they want from them, "he who has ears to hear" and all. Multiple meanings are deliberately possible to many of Jesus' claimed responses so I wouldn't say there is anything basic about them. So what's the answer? Should people pay taxes or shouldn't they?

What is the coin that the person who came up with the story basing it on? Could it have been a coin that had Caesar on one side and a God or Godess on the other? Could that change the meaning?

What is God's and what is Caesar's? Could the Roman domination of Christianity have colored the meaning and interpretation of this passage as it has been passed down? Much like the Roman soldier's supposed declaration of belief in Jesus mentioned earlier. It could have been a call to abandon the use of money entirely.

Should people give money to Churches or shouldn't they? I don't actually see an answer from Jesus I just see more questions.

Many non-Bible readers have heard some variation of the phrase and in more popular terms it's stated something like "Give Caesar his due".

True, it's a phrase that has been passed down to mean a specific thing. That doesn't mean that the answer is straightforward, it means it's been interpreted that way for obvious reasons when you look at the history. It could also have had a completely different meaning. So I don't find it to be such a simple and straightforward answer.

Makes me wonder what the book has to say. I doubt I'd purchase it though.

I doubt I would either. Too many good books available for me to spend too much time on it.

Bottom line, the concern I have with that is that some guy is going to take the ball and run with it and start saying things like "Hey, your Savior didn't answer the questions his own believers asked him, why do you expect me to?"

Or things like that....

I think the guy or girl who runs with it in the way you describe is probably the closest to being like the Jesus character in the Bible that you would find today. The way it's written he doesn't come across as someone who accepted the status quo. I think it raises all sorts of questions that I'm sure many religions would prefer to have straightforward answers to.

[_Quasimodo]

I'd agree Quasimodo. Politicians today are just as difficult when it comes to getting straight answers and I think there's a good chance that Jesus was a failed political leader who got crucified before he had the chance to take down the Romans.

Or maybe I've watched too much Braveheart.

A failed political leader who would have tried to take down the Romans by telling people to obey the Roman government?

I'm not seeing it, RJ.

Whether Jesus said it or not "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" was a VERY clever answer and points to someone with a very astute political acumen. He wasn't telling people to obey the Romans as much as avoiding a statement that would have condemned him.

From what we have of the gospels, I don't think Jesus was a friend of the Romans and even less a friend of the Pharisees. I do think his political views eventually lead to his execution.